ADJ18376723 · October 9, 2025

The Appeals Board found that defendant did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to defendant.

From the decision · page 1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal from the "Order Rescinding Order to Disclose Medical History" ("Order") issued on January 29, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ rescinded a prior order for applicant to disclose his medical history pursuant to Labor Code1 section 4663(d) and ordered the parties to meet and confer on the issue and file for a hearing should they not resolve their dispute.

Defendant did not establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure meant the extraordinary remedy of removal was not justified.

From the decision · page 2Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments and for the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and will be granted only if the petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted, and that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.

The Appeals Board applied this standard and found defendant did not meet the burden to justify removal.

From the decision · page 1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70

Labor Code section 4663(d)

Labor Code section 4663(d) requires an employee who claims an industrial injury to disclose all previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments upon request.

The Appeals Board considered the scope of section 4663(d) in relation to compelled discovery methods.

From the decision · page 2Section 4663 was amended in 2004 and in pertinent part reads: "(d) An employee who claims an industrial injury shall, upon request, disclose all previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments." (§ 4663(d).) Here, defendant requests an order compelling applicant to disclose such disabilities or impairments.2 The question presented is whether discovery via written interrogatories may be compelled pursuant to section 4663(d).

Labor Code section 5708

Labor Code section 5708 limits the methods of investigation in Appeals Board proceedings to oral testimony and records, excluding written interrogatories as a method of compelled discovery.

The Appeals Board found that compelled discovery must be via oral testimony or records, not written interrogatories, under section 5708.

From the decision · page 3Although section 4663 does not specifically prohibit compelled discovery via written interrogatory, it cannot be read alone. Specifically, it appears that section 5708 limits the methods of investigation of Appeals Board proceedings as follows: